Talk:Personal computer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review Personal computer has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is within the scope of Computing WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to computers and computing. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Personal computer article.
Article policies
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:
To-do list for Personal computer: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Reorganize article and remove most of the "x86 PC enthusiast" geared text that is inappropriate for an article about PCs in general.
  • Add a well-written section talking about the dominance of various platforms and operating systems over the years. From individual proprietary systems on through the IBM PC and the DOSes, Apple's hardware, OS/2, Windows, etc. The "Non-IBM PCs" section can be nixed and incorporated here.
  • Refer to the Computing Time-line http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computing_timeline_1950-1979 while discussing the dominance of the various platforms.
  • Improve the pictures used by the article. Pictures of peoples' PC desks are terrible; try to replace them with informative diagrams. Need pictures for the history section to show the hardware and software evolution of PCs.
  • Whatever else needs to be done...

(Formerly, "Personal Computers" was redirected to "Home Computers", which discusses early machines like Apple ][s only. We ought to have a more comprehensuve article here linked to "Home Computers" for early history.)

Isn't the term personal computer formalized only after IBM's introduction of the PC? Before then, only home computer was the common name?

Nope. That's what the IBM PC was: the IBM Personal computer, as opposed to all the other personal computers that were already on the market. THere were lots. Tannin 22:05 20 May 2003 (UTC)

---

The article gives a definition of Personal Computer as

"A personal computer is an inexpensive microcomputer, originally designed to be used by only one person at a time, and which is IBM PC compatible - (though in common usage it may sometimes refer to non-compatible machines)."

I would say that only the initials "PC" are ever taken to indicate an IBM/Intel/Windows-standard personal computer. (ex. usage "Do you own a Mac or a PC?" but never "Do you own a Mac or a Personal Computer?") and the rest of the article text would seem to corroborate this, with discussion of many pre-IBM-PC microcomputers. Exia

---

The bottom half of this article is absolutely bad. What's with all the "of"s? Someone needs to fix it. - RadRafe

Quite so. Also, it's not about personal computers in any casse, it seems to be some rough notes about the development of mini computers - which are an entirely different thing. Tannin Text follows:


Contents

[edit] Soled PCs/Laptops per year

It would be really interresting if all segemnts could get a rough number of the sold devices/year. I recently read something like

Twenty or more other [ultra low-cost PC] designs are expected to enter the market over the next six months, and Microsoft expects 10 million to 13 million of the devices to sell this year, according to the documents.

[1]

How many PC's were sold in 2007? How does it stack against these numbers? Would be cool to have some basic numbers, or even a timeline/chart. --141.84.69.20 (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Press mention

The term Personal Computer was in usage in 1975 by Byte Magazine. See how casually the term is used while referring to microcomputer field in general: http://www.digibarn.com/collections/mags/byte-sept-oct-1975/one/4.jpg Third Column top half starting "In the personal computing field..." In the latest IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, Shapiro reports what may be the earliest print appearance of "personal computer": It's in an ad for Hewlett-Packard's first desktop computer, published in the 4 October 1968 issue of Science. The ad, which also ran in other journals, beats the earliest citation given in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED)--an article in Byte magazine--by nearly 8 years. Alatari 11:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Forbes has an article claiming an innaccuracy in this article [2] concerning the first mention of the term "personal computer". The author found a reference in a New York Times article from 1962 (the author does not claim that this is the first mention) whereas the Wikipedia entry cited a New Scientist article in 1964. Can someone with access to the New York Times archive please check this out, and have a quick look for any previous mentions of the term. (unsigned)

Review this interesting piece: http://www.blinkenlights.com/pc.shtml They were not called 'personal computers' but they fit the definition. And this research piece found the first device which 'personal computer' was used to describe it: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.12/mustread.html?pg=11 Alatari 15:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

The first computers that can be called 'personal' were the first non-mainframe computers, the LINC and the PDP-8. By today's standards they were big (about the size of a refrigerator), expensive (around $50,000 US), and had small magnetic core memories (about 4096 12-bit words for the LINC).

However, they were small enough and cheap enough for individual laboratories and research projects to use, freeing them from the batch processing and bureaucracy of the typical industrial or university computing center. In addition, they were moderately interactive and soon had their own operating systems. Eventually, this category became known as the mini-computer, usually with time-sharing and program development facilities. Eventually, the mini-computer grew up to encompass the VAX and larger mini-computers from Data General, Prime, and others. Deployment of mini-computer systems was a model for how personal computers would be used, but few of the mini-computer makers managed to profit from it.

Personal computer - computer (computer) for the personal use.Before the appearance of the first personal computers, the existing computers were very expensive in the price and in the operation, which excluded the possibility of the acquisition of such machines by individual people.Computers could be found in the large corporations, in the universities, in the centers of studies and in the state establishments.Personal computers became possible in the Seventies, when amateurs began to construct their personal computers only in order in principle of having the capability to brag by this uncommon object/subject.Raniye personal computers did not have practical application, and they were extended very slowly.

On 23 December, 1947, three scientific in the laboratories companies Bell, William Shokley, Walter Brateyn and John Bardeen invented the point transistor amplifier (transistor), which allowed decreases in the sizes/dimensions of the computers, which to this moment/torque used electron tubes.

During September 1958, the jack frame Of kilbi from the company Texas by Instruments built the first electronic microcircuit, where five components were integrated on one pay of Germany, with size/dimension in one-and-a-half centimeter into dlinnu and 1-2 millimeters into the thickness.

In 1959, Robert Noys from Fairchyuild Of semichonduchtor, it built the integrated electronic microcircuit where of the component they were soyedeneny with each other alyuminivymi lines on the oxidized surface of silicon (silichon-okhide).

In 1960 the company Of digital Of etsuipment presented the first minicomputer Of pdp-y (PDP - program, date, processor), which was sold for 120000 American dollars.this was the first commercial computer equipped with keyboard and monitor.

In 1963, Douglas engelbart invented computer mouse - the input equipment into the computer by the method of "tyka ':)

In 1964, John Kemeny and Thomas Kyurtts in the college To dartmoutyu, they developed the language of programming BASICH.BASICH this reduction, which is read as Beginners of All -purpose Symbolich Of instruchtion To chode, or the multipurpose language of the symbolic codes of instructions for the novices (MYASKIN?

In 1964 the American association of standards assumes/takes new seven-bit standard for exchanging the information ASCHII (Americhan of Standard To chode of the odds Of information To interchyuange.)

In 1965 Gordon Moore, chief for research and developments for Fairchyuild Of semichonduchtor of company formulates the collection of different observations about the rate of the development of technology for decreasing the transistor in the microcircuits.Popular opinion in the fact that Moore establishes law (Moore's law) who it says that transistor density in the integrated microcircuits it will be doubled every 12 months in the course of the following ten years.

During May 1966, Stephen Grey bases the society of computer amateurs (Amateur Of chomputer Of sochiyety) or ACHS, and he begins to publish the news of cloud/club.(there is an opinion that this it served as the generation of personal computers.)

On 4 June, 1966, American ofis of patents issues doctor Robert Dennard from the company OF IBM, patent 3387286 for single-transistor storage cell (DRAMAS Of dynamich By random Of achchess Of memory or dynamic access to the random memory) and to the base idea of three-transistor storage cell.This type of memory is used for the short term retention of information in the computer.

In 1966, Robert Noys and Gordon Moore base corporation Intel.this company is begun from the creation of the micros-chip of memory, but gradually it is converted into the company for the production of microprocessors.

In 1966, Douglas engelbart from the research institute of Stanford, presents system consisting of the literal keyboard, the tsifernoy keyboard, the mouse and the program of the supporting output information to screen in the different ' windows '.At the demonstration is shown text editor, the system that solving to construct references to the information and program for the collective work.

In 1969, the company Of yuoneyshell lets out Yuey' "kitchen computer", first domestic computer for 10600 American dollars.

[edit] first kit PC?

from http://www.anu.edu.au/mail-archives/link/link9808/0362.html

email from Owen Hill of Microbee history:

"Jim did design EDUC 8 (1979 or so) and legend has it that Jim's computer was probably the first hobby-built PC in the world! It was published in Electronics Australia just prior to the MITS Altair article appeared in Popular Electronics the US. The editors of Popular Electronics did later admit, reluctantly, that EA had published the first home PC design."

1979 would put it well after the first kit AIM or even the first complete Apple II or TRS-80. Alatari 13:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

The image in this page contains a message advocating the bombing of motor vehicals. I don't think that is encyclopaedia-appropriate.

The picture is so dark you can hardly see the computer so it isn't very good anyway. Rmhermen 15:21, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)

Both pictures actually lack showing the main case of the PC! *All* the other components are in fact non-unique to PCs. A decent picture of a full PC system would be helpful. :-) (most components might be part of a Net Computer, or Dumb Terminal system.)

As for the picture with the TV, modern graphics cards contain TV in and out (again, in case you're old enough to remember ), and I have seen tvs connected up to part of a PC system.

Also note that people in "Real Life" keep using very old PCs indeed, without replacing them at all, and people often personalize their personal machines, though I'm not sure how to best illustrate this.

I hope the pic of my tower (Evesham, 3 GHz) answers your comments on the pic of my general set-up. Obviously a view inside the tower would be good as well, but I'm not willing to open up (I'm chicken!).
For your interest, the TV is not in any way relevant to my computer, I don't want to miss Coronation Street or Eastenders while I do Wiki work (I live in England)!
Adrian Pingstone 21:03, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Okay well, I don't mind opening up one of my PCs. I've made some pictures and added them to my photo dir. Are any of those useful? There's a 2nd computer in the background, but that shouldn't be a big deal. Pictures include: tower, tower interior, tower rear, shots of the desktop. (In varying quality and lighting). The machine itself is a white label Pentium 4, using an nvidia geforce 2 graphics card, drives in the drive bays (from top to bottom) are CD-writer, DVD-RW, 20 Gb hard disk (cheap one, thrown in with the deal), hard disk 160 Gb. I haven't owned it long enough to really hack around with it, so I guess the hardware is still fairly typical. :-) 80.126.238.189 16:34, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC) (Click on the required resolution, then click on the relevant thumbnail to obtain the actual image)
I think this one is good but it's overexposed. Could someone with photo shop fix it up? [3]BrokenSegue 16:03, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I work at a IT department, and right now I have lots of Dell's (GX260-280, SX260-280, GX620), Compaq DeskproEN's, HP d530's and others, both SFF and regular form factory. Anyone interested in photos? -- Pål Grønås Drange

[edit] Components

Also, is there no article on wikipedia about the components of a computer, Expansion slots(PCI, AGP, ISA) hard drive, video, RAM etc?

[edit] More history

We need more about the history of personal computers (the lack of a reference to the Xerox Alto is a major oversight), and in fact there's so much one could say (see the material above) that it could probably be a separate article, with a brief overwiew, and link, from here. Noel (talk) 00:32, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC) the data on the history of computers is not enough we need extra knowledge about the comper history-- Saptesh

After reviewing some timelines and the OldComputerMuseum's pages I see several machines that should be mentioned and aren't. Like Intel's Intellec Intellec-8 circa 1973 and IBM's IBM 5100 circa 1975. Both important contributions from major players which are obviously hardware precursors of personal computers when viewed but fail to be called personal computers cause of the $2300 in 1974 dollars for the Intellec or the $9500 in 1975 dollars for the IBM 5100. Alatari 18:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image choice

It's great to see a system pictured, but I'd like to see a better system layout than that one, with no TV and the system case clearly shown. Anybody have a camera, and everthing in one clear layout, without extra details? Radagast 01:43, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)


[edit] History moved

I think we need to tell people about the Elder Days. So, I've moved the great stuff about LINC and PDP 8 back into the article. The "generations" of personal computers seems to be something specific to this article, I don't think I've seen that cateogorization elsewhere. There's so much overlap between, for example, the Commodore 64 style "home" computer and the cheap IBM compatible that I'm sure many households had both at the same time, thoough I imagine the use of a C64 in an office would have been very rare. --Wtshymanski 05:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Currently, this content is divided among the microcomputer, home computer, and personal computer wikis. The division appears to coincide (roughly) with the changes in marketing nomenclature over the years. However, to date, none of the articles offer a pictorial history that tells the story of the micro (or PC, or whatever you want to call it).
As for the personal computer article in particular, I feel that the gallery of photos lacks a certain historical objectivity. While I believe that photos illustrating PCs with character (i.e., examples illustrating real-life contexts, and not just machines as they would appear on a box cover or in a clean room) have their place in the article, the examples fail to illustrate the evolution of PC industrial design and technological innovation; endless submissions of contemporary, x86-compatible home computers do not serve to edify. Is there an article on computer customization or "hot-rodding"? — Ringbang 21:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
{By the late 1980s, "home computers" were slowly being replaced by "personal computers" because the graphics and sound capacities of "home" systems were matched by those intended for "business" purposes. This, combined with a general decrease in costs of personal computers, caused the two market segments to fuse. These computers were pre-assembled, often pre-configured with bundled software, and required little technical knowledge to operate.} REmoved this for confusing the definitions of personal and home computers and having the date's inaccurate. Alatari 10:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
{A cynic once said: "Apple never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity." Ironically, in 1997, a leading computer magazine declared that Apple's new iMac computer was the best-selling personal computer on the market, with nearly 10% market share.[citation needed] The magazine printed a list of computers by several different manufacturers, in order of sales volume: they were not separated by operating system, despite the fact that in that year very few retailers displayed IBM PC's and Macintosh computers side by side.} The cynic needs to be named as does the computer magazine. It certainly isn't clear that iMac outsold Dell's most popular modules those years so again citations/verifications must back these statements up. Alatari 10:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] There's one they forgot...

They forgot Simon. http://www.blinkenlights.com/pc.shtml Scroll to the very bottom.

Agreed can anyone confirm that the article is accurate (i.e. Simon can be considered the first Personal computer). If it is then the info in it should be included in the history section or at least a link to the article. Qazzian 09:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The confusion here is that the Simon was never called a 'personal computer' during it's time period. That term didn't come into being until 1962 (earlier references I can not find although they may exist). Do we want to define 'personal computer' and then go back and reevaluate every machine in history by that definition or do we stick to the actual usage of what machines were called 'personla computers' from their inception? Alatari 23:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Big cleanup / rewrite

I've started to work on cleaning up this article. So far I've only touched up the existing content, but it still needs some reorganizing, addition, and deletion. I've added various notes throughout the text where I noticed need for improvement. Hopefully we can steer this away from being a PC enthusiast's guide to something a bit more like an encyclopedia article. If you'd like to lend a hand, feel free, or drop a line here if you'd like to comment on the changes I'm making. -- uberpenguin 06:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems that there is a Giant hole where software should be in this article. What do you think? --Mushroom King 04:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The whole article is a giant hole... I'm trying to get it to win WP:AID because I don't want to rewrite the whole thing myself. -- uberpenguin 04:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I just voted. Do I need to add any justifications why I voted or is a signature good enough?--Mushroom King 04:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Good enough. -- uberpenguin 04:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

There needs to be a rewrite on the Hard disk drive section. I don't see any mention of non-volatile, platters, or write heads anywhere. It gets much into detail about parts that surround the hard disk drive, but it never actually defines it. --Mushroom King 05:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about this and realised there should be a Storage catagory, where it splits into Hard Disk and CDs.--Mushroom King 14:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Secondary storage would be a viable alternative to just "Hard disk". However, the secondary storage article will require some expansion if we want it to be our main point. The hole is just getting bigger and bigger... --Mushroom King 03:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
To be more general, we should prefer the terms primary storage, secondary storage, etc (tertiary storage isn't too common with PCs). Rather than just directly linking to those articles, the relevant sections should explain what specific types of storage are generally used with PCs. Remember that even in the PC realm nothing dictates that one must use a hard disk for mass storage. -- uberpenguin 02:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm starting to try to make sense of what we already have and what we need. Right now I'm merely revising the article for flow and clarity and reworking what is already there. I'm not making too many major content changes as of yet. One thing that is very notable is that the history section mostly talks about minicomputers and just barely skims the explosion of actual personal computers during the mid-80s and beyond. That definitely needs to be changed. I'm going to strip down the "Configuration" section (incidentally, it still needs a better name) to bare bones and expand from there. PC configuration should be relatively short and as general as possible. This article should really concentrate on the history and development of personal computers and their impact, not the details of what goes into your ATX tower. -- uberpenguin 18:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I should mention that History of computing hardware (1960s-present) has a rather excellent layout and coverage, and I'll probably be stealing some of that for this article's history section. -- uberpenguin 18:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the history should be rewritten and focussed on the dominance of particular machines in the business, educational and gaming markets by years starting 1975. --Alatari 08:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exploded view

Exploded view of a personal computer
1. Monitor 5. Expansion cards 9. Mouse
2. Motherboard 6. Power supply unit 10. Keyboard
3. CPU (Microprocessor) 7. Optical disc drive
4. Main memory (RAM) 8. Hard disk drive (HDD)

What exactly is an "exploded" common Wintel PC? Can my AMD suffice ;D? 68.39.174.238 19:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Exploded view ... The hope is to replace the photographs with a diagram or two and to avoid making them over-specific. For example, an item ought to be labeled "CPU" rather than "x86 CPU" or "AMD Athlon XP" ... -- uberpenguin 02:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I would like to give it a try. Can you perhaps suggest a list of what parts that should be included and at what level of detail they should be illustrated? –Gustavb 04:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd say display (CRT, LCD, whatever), input (mouse, keyboard?), and exploded computer (CPU, mainboard/motherboard, main memory (RAM), hard disk, power supply, expansion cards). The detail doesn't have to be incredibly high; don't bother denoting that the box that holds everything together is a "case" or these are "cables" or what one expansion card's purpose is compared to the next. I also don't particularly care what shape the PC takes (could be some IBM PC compatible, Mac lookalike, etc). Probably would be best to fashion it after a fairly modern PC shape since the history section will contain images of examples from earlier generations. I would stay away from illustrating an all-in-one type form factor since it's more difficult to produce a sane exploded view of such a thing. Thanks for your consideration and help! -- uberpenguin 00:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. I have now started drawing, here's what I've done so far: Image:Personal computer, exploded.svg. It's very much a work in progress – probably about 1/5 is done. I will upload new revisions as I proceed. –Gustavb 23:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Looks great so far. Thanks so much for working on this! -- uberpenguin 00:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree. It looks wonderful. Make sure you keep it in perspective though, which you are doing a very good job at I might add. --Mushroom King 00:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I might add, when you get around to the labeling, use "CPU (microprocessor)" for the CPU label. It's more specific and accurate for the purposes of this article. -- uberpenguin 03:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the nice feedback! Yes, keeping the perspective is probably the hardest part when doing 3D with a 2D application – I recently added help lines to make it easier. I've also uploaded a new version, still much a work in progress though (about 2/5). Regarding the labeling, do you prefer "inline" labeling (names in the illustration) over numbers and labels in the caption? Inline style makes it faster to read, but on the other hand it makes linking and translation (for other wikis) harder… –Gustavb 06:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Whatever you think works better. I don't particularly care. -- uberpenguin 15:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with uberpenguin; whatever you think works better. --Mushroom King 04:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I chose the numbers+caption alternative. My concern right now is whether it's clear enough… at the size shown to the right it's a bit hard to distinguish what is what on the motherboard (and making it bigger than that in the actual article is probably not a good idea?). Aside from that, any comments? –Gustavb 20:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
It looks fantastic to me. The size is fine; the only thing I'd change is the label "DVD player" to "Optical disc drive" to be more general. Other than that minor qualm, it's awesome. Bravo! Now we'll have to write a high quality article to go with the diagram. -- uberpenguin 22:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Yes, you are right about the "DVD player", it's unnecessary specific… changed. I'm pretty satisfied now, so feel free to place it wherever you like it in the article. –Gustavb 00:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's a (low res copy of) a rather simpler one I did earlier, which I'd be willing to share under a CC-like licence. [4] Any good? Thruston 23:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I notice there seems to have been a push to completely eliminate real photographs of modern PCs from this page, They are saying see talk page but all i can find is the one comment at the start of this section. I personally find this a little disturbing. Plugwash 02:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I was mixed up when I wrote that comment (was thinking about a similar discussion on Talk:Computer). Here's the issue, every few weeks someone adds a vanity photo of their PC to this (or the Computer) article. I object to this on several grounds. Modern desktop PC photos are uninteresting since almost everyone reading the article is already sitting in front of one. The images are usually poorly composed and much less attractive than the nice illustrations we have now. What's more, if we allow one user's PC vanity photo to stay, what stops every other user who has ever added their PC's mugshot to this article from adding it back, citing NPOV or something equally ludicris? For these reasons, I'm strongly against adding photos of peoples' desktops to this article. However, I'm very sorry for implying that there was some prior discussion here that doesn't actually exist. If you want to discuss it now, go ahead; I've made my points. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-06-05 03:24Z
IMO thats like saying we should have no photos at cat because people will use it as an excuse to push vanity images. I also disagree with the uninteresing comment, yes people will be sitting in front of a PC but there are quite a few styles that can be discussed along with thier pros and cons. Plugwash 18:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Also imo that "stylised illustration" at the top of the page is even more uninteresting than a photograph. Plugwash 18:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Woz

Although I've been using PC's since the PCjr, I know very little about the history of Personal Computers. But even I know enough to know that Steve Wozniak, the freakin' FATHER OF THE PC, should at least have his own section. Then I discover he isn't mentioned at all. I'm no fan of Apple products, but it's unbelievable that I had to add a reference to Woz. Someone with more in-depth knowledge than I needs to come up with a good, meaty paragraph.

"Father of the PC" is a pretty large editorial stretch, but you're right that Apple doesn't get nearly enough attention in this article. The whole thing needs rewriting; feel free to do it if you like. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-04-05 23:34Z
Macs aren't PCs. They even say so in their ads... Danorux 21:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Macs are PCs. They are computers designed and sold for personal usage. Let the marketers quibble over semantics, but as we define a PC, the Macintosh is a PC. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-07-11 22:22Z

Exactly...Macs are 'Personal Computers' the marketing directed against this term is so damn annoying because its a really simple and definitive phrase encompassing these machines.

The claim that the Apple II was the first successful personal computer and sold 2 million units is misleading. Those weren't all sold in 1977 and there were months when the TRS-80 outpaced Apple II's sales. We need hard cold figures here. Alatari 15:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Found some sales figures: "Total share: 30 years of personal computer market share figures", Jeremy Reimer Dec.14, 2005 http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/total-share.ars/4 Apple lagged in 3rd or 4th place at all times but 1982. TRS-80 dominated till 1979, it's clones and Tandy went head to head with the new Atari 1980 with Apple tied for 3rd with PET, 1981 saw Apple, Tandy and Atari neck and neck with Tandy clones and others outpacing each individually, 1982 was Atari's big year, 1983 C64 and IBM squelched the rest continuing the trend in to 1987. After 1987 IBM PC and Clones were 70% with Apple at 15% and after 1995 well it's 95% msWindows Alatari 23:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image size

The point of thumbnails is that readers can decide for theselves whether or not to look at the large image, and that page-loading is speeded up for those on dial-up connections. Enlarging an image to 400px defeats the object; it insists that people see the large version. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hardware - Add PPU?

I just wanted to know if anyone thinks that th Physics prosessing card should be aded to the hardware list. Maybe we should wait another year or something until they become standard, just seeing what other people thought. --Mincetro 04:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering that what you speak of is little more than a specialized niche DSP... No. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-06-21 05:03Z

[edit] Hardware - Add Printer?

A key item that I feel is missing is the printer. Many of the systems shown/described are closer to networked business systems using an implied shared printer resource; even historically, the vast majority of "personal" computers either came with a printer or had it as a must-have accessory. Early types were the thermal and impact dot matrix, followed largely by the daisywheel and thimblewheel, and then of course the ubiquitous inkjet (laser printers were never really cheap enough to be offered as a standard option with a truly personal PC that wasn't a business machine).

In addition, today one sees systems for sale that include as "standard" both a NIC (network interface - difficult to call it a card these days when sometimes it is integrated into the motherboard) and a recordable disk device - usually CD/RW but increasingly DVD-RW and variants of both. Modems are increasingly left out of the package, since the rise of broadband in the form of flavors of DSL (mostly aDSL but I've used also sDSL) and the fall-off of ISDN.

"Personal Computer" many years ago (30+) simply meant one that was used exclusively by one individual rather than shared with others (as in a dumb terminal). It was more often found in a mainframe or minicomputer environment. The meaning of the term has evolved just as the machines have.

I'd be happy to chip in sections except that I'm swamped with writing a ton of other stuff and I'm just spread too thin :( AncientBrit 15:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite needed

Ugly, ugly composition in the history section now - advent of what? "computer terminal based architectures" is not even correct, nor literate. Could a native English speaker with some time please copyedit this to make it less painful to read? ( I'm adding it to my to-do list). Needs a better sense of the difference between batch mode computing and "personal" interactive computing and the origins back at MIT and so forth; also some contrast to the very first electronic computers which were used in much more interactive a way than the batch mode machines. --Wtshymanski 17:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's been on my todo list for months, but I decided that Computer was more important to fix first. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-08-16 18:32Z
Worked on a rewrite of the first pharagraph focusing on the term personal computer as an affordable, small private use machine. Found lots of sources hoping to quell any citation objections. Alatari 19:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Found a great resoucre on the sales figures of personal computers from 1976 on. http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/total-share.ars/3 It shows what I lived through. The Apple was 3rd place for 2 years into 1980 Alatari 19:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Add recycling section

Hello all. I was thinking that a good addition to the article would be a paragraph about recycling. It is my opinion that most people do not know that they have a recycling option for their computers.

[edit] Ken Olsen quote

  • I have some problems with the Ken Olsen quote as presented. For one thing, according to the Snopes page on this subject, the actual quote is "There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home."
    In addition, this quote is seriously taken out of context. According the the previously mentioned snopes page, the "home computers" that Mr. Olsen is talking about are not the same thing as what we currently think of as PC's. In the manner this quote is used it appears untrue.
    Really, it ought to be removed, but for now I have just put in a verify tag. If no one can find a contradicting source, then this quote ought to go.Ricree101 02:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I moved the comment to this talk page. It is clear Olsen was referring to home controlling machines not the terminals he already had in his home allowing his wife access to Scrabble and his son access to MIT. Wozniak had a major part to play in the microcomputer revolution of the 70's but this comment doesn't keep a NPOV direction for the article:
"Minicomputers were available to smaller organizations than those that once used mainframes, but were not aimed at individuals, Ken Olsen, founder of DEC, has been widely quoted as saying in 1971 "there is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home"[5] This was understandable, considering what DEC was offering: only a fairly large organization could use or afford a machine the size of an average home refrigerator that required external terminals to operate and program. A few individuals, such as Steve Wozniak, had differing views, as will be seen below."
Alatari 22:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First image

It seems to me that the image at the top of the page should probably be of a modern personal computer. Perhaps we could select a model that is particularly iconic or popular. I think the first image should reflect what people think of when they think of personal computers, and the Altair 8800 is probably not it. — The Storm Surfer 04:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we can use the pictogram style diagram suggested above and update it every year, but to pick a popular model for the first image is asking for further flaming, debate and politics in this article. Alatari 12:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The first image is NOT showing up in my computer. (MSIE7 on MS Windows XP) --Do not click me! 14:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Image must have been modified. Won't Size to under 260px now. Fixed. Alatari 13:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say the problem still persists, and it is not browser dependent, I'm using safari on a Mac. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that it's a .SVG image, maybe it is corrupt. Strange thing is that the picture sometimes does appear, and it always appears in commons, (by double clicking on the image). Mahjongg 15:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Changed the sizes and they seem to work now. A good source is Image --Statsone 17:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
It was a global problem. Wikipedia had a banner describing the details. Alatari 11:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging the Home computer article into this one

I've proposed the Home computer article be merged into this one because both articles indicate the terms are interchangeable. In order to avoid creating two conversations, please comment on the merge at the home computer talk page. --Android Mouse 06:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: I think this section should be edited down and "Main article: Home computer" inserted below the section heading. There does need to be a separate article on the home computer and most of what's in this section belongs in it, not here. Scolaire 12:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup revisited

User:A Link to the Past who rated this page said the list were too extensive. These could be moved into the Timeline of computing and refer users there. I'm unfamiliar with how to fix the Timeline template and make it more readable. Alatari 11:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Post-IBM-PC personal business computer systems

Some of the computers in this list are not even personal computers, such as the SGI Indigo or Onyx. The Indigo was a high end workstation while the Onyx was a visualisation system or graphics supercomputer. The same goes for the SPARCstations which are workstations with up to four microprocessors costing around 30 grand. I have no idea why they would be listed here, should really be edited out -- Rilak 18:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that they were designed to be used by a single person, (at any one point in time) defines that they were personal computers, as opposed to the earlier mainframe computers that served many users at the same time. That they were high end systems does not invalidate this fact. Mahjongg 14:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Being intended for use by a single user does not make a computer a PC. The article itself states: 'A personal computer (PC) is a computer whose price, size, and capabilities make it useful for individuals.' Neither the Indigo, Onyx nor the SPARCstation meet any of these requirements. One can also categorise a computer by examining the architecture, features and capabilities. If we look at the Onyx system architecture, it is in fact based on the POWER CHALLENGE or Origin supercomputers and have many features and capabilities (for the time) that were completely alien in PCs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rilak (talk • contribs) 14:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
You made my point for me. Architecture doesn't matter. Just price, size and capabilities. The SGI Indy was competing head to head with Macintoshes Alatari 16:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Architecture does matter because it determines price, size and capabilities. For example, one method used in the mid 1990s to increase the L2 cache bandwidth was to increase the width of the dedicated L2 cache bus. This would raise pin count and increase the number of wires present on the PCB of the motherboard or daughtercard, thus increasing the cost of manufacturing and thus purchase, as well as the size and capability of a computer.

As for your comments regarding the Indy, I was talking about the Indigo, not the Indy which was SGI's low cost budget computer, which I do acknowledge to be a machine that was designed to compete in the digital publishing market as well as for business use such as video conferencing through the IndyCam.

While I agree with your mention that the Indigo and Onyx as well as other workstations can be purchased second for a cheap price today and be used as a personal computer today, when they were originally released, they certainly did not cost 'a few hundred dollars' nor were they used as a such purposes. A look at the OpenGL Performance section for 1996 at SPEC.org will give an interesting insight into the configurations and cost of workstations compared to PCs. Rilak 17:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Guess we have a question to be answered. Classify by the price now or the original price? Makes sense to keep them classified by historical context. So can you link your BM results for various machines all circa 1996? Alatari 17:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The information for the pricing of workstations and PCs circa 1996 can be found at: http://www.spec.org/gwpg/Feb96/opc/opc.cdrs.summary.price.html Rilak 17:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
If I read this right the Digital AlphaStation 600 5/300 ZLXp-E3 would be the machine worth the most due to it's performance. We don't have a quantity in the affordable part of the definition but people seem willing to spend up to $3500 for personal computers no matter what year over the last decade. So classify all machines under $3500 on the COmposite index as personal computers? Alatari 17:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The link I've provided lists all the computers from least expensive to most expensive. The composite index shows the price per a unit of performance, not how much the computer costs, which would be listed in the list price column. As for saying that all computers under $3,500 dollars are not PCs I don't think that would be a good way to define it, as PCs have ranged anywhere from a five grand 386 in the early 1990s to the $300 budget machine today. This article's definition of a PC: 'A personal computer (PC) is a computer whose price, size, and capabilities make it useful for individuals.' is adequate I think. But what is the verdict regarding the Indigo, Onyx and other similar computers. Should they be classified as PCs or not? Rilak 18:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
So the smaller the number the better. Two points: Those results were weighted almost exclusively to graphics capabilities and none of the Intel based machines had 3d accelerated video cards making the comparisons invalid. I assume this was to hide the fact that the cheap Intel based machines with excellent video cards could compete with the high end workstations. So we'll need overall performance benchmarks. As for the pricing: Yes they were priced out of the personal ownership market then but I can get and Indigo2 for under $200 http://cgi.ebay.com/SGI-Silicon-Graphics-Indigo2-R4400-250-128MB-18GB-3D-SW_W0QQitemZ160156854201QQihZ006QQcategoryZ1484QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem and install Linux making it my own personal computer. So either we allow any affordable machine to fall under the definition of personal computer or we have to rewrite the definition with a built in 'of that era' clause. Alatari 03:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Although I do understand the train of thought that states that a computer that is completely out of the price range for a mere individual person, or which is merely a subsystem for a mainframe, (or another large and expensive computer that is in itself too expensive for a normal person) and therefore cannot be a personal computer, the historical fact is that personal computers were named as such because they were designed to be used by one single person! That is why the Datapoint 2200 can be thought of as (one of) the first personal computers. If you look at it from that historical perspective the fact that it took the capital of a large company to pay for one is in fact irrelevant. However I accept that at a later date, especially after the introduction of the home computer, the term became diluted to mean only those systems that a person could afford, however that is not the historical meaning!.
Also, when factoring price into the decision whether a historical computer can be categorized as a "personal" computer the only reasonable thing is to look at the historical price of the computer, not what it's worth now as scrap iron. Mahjongg 10:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
The definition doesn't mention historical pricing and the Intergraph machines from 8 years ago are still useful and inexpensive for personal use. I have many clients in doctors offices that refuse to upgrade because productivity might decline. I'm still servicing some Win 98 machines. Alatari 20:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The comparisons of the PCs and workstations on the SPEC page are not invalid. They represented the best each of the companies at that time had to offer. I have done some research into computer graphics in the mid 1990s and I have not found any PC hardware that had any practical (usable for production quality, technical and scientific applications) 3D graphics options. If anyone has anything to contribute, please post links to reputable sources.
The Freedom cards were PCI cards and the x86 boxes could run Solaris with installed Freedom Graphics cards yet they failed to do the benchmark with only the x86 CPU being the changed variable. That makes the results biased to the high end manufacturers and invalidates the benchmark. Look closely at who paid for the study and who benefits from the results. Alatari 20:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
To also say that every single computer in the history of man is a PC if it was designed for a single person to use is pointless and does not represent the vast variety of single user systems. It is misleading to portray a $30,000 with exotic (for the time) architecture as a common PC that everyone had access to. We must also keep up to date with definitions. The original meaning of PC as being a computer that a single person uses may be correct for the particular time (maybe before workstations) but definitions change.
I think that if we cannot come to a consensus regarding the distinction of PCs or workstations or any other similar single user computer, than we should split the PC page into separate parts, each detailing the definition of PC in the context of any particular historical period with listed examples just like the Wikipedia article on workstations. Definitions of words change as technology and society evolves. It would be misleading and incorrect to stay with the original definition after general views have changed, much like the definition of English words for example.
I wholeheartedly agree. The term is still evolving and some inclusion of historical pricing needs to be added to the definition. Just remember that performance is one thing that is measurable but pricing is truly subjective. If you can convince a CEO that your Sun Workstations are vastly superior than an in house built x86 and have them pay 10x the price even though the actual performance differences are in the 5% range you're a super salesperson. That still doesn't make your workstation not a personal computer. Are we going to adhere to marketing definitions of what computers are or to technical definitions? We have to keep an eye on marketers from high profit manufacturers coming into Wikipedia and playing around with the articles to enhance their customers perspectives. Alatari 20:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
While workstations and PCs are being debated, I would like to point out that the Onyx is not exactly a workstation. While one model in the Onyx and Onyx2 series were workstations, the rest of the models, while sharing the same branding are clearly, without any doubt, graphics supercomputers based on the POWER CHALLENGE and Origin supercomputer architectures, as evidenced by SGI's Onyx2 Technical Report as well as later SGI datasheets and were certainly always used in multiple user environments. Rilak 11:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a disconnect between the term "personal computer" and the history behind it. Right now I'm reading: Fire in the Valley: The Making of The Personal Computer by Paul Freiberger and Michael Swaine (Paperback - Nov 29, 1999) Its a start for info. The problem was that many of the small office/home office computers were already called microcomputers (down from PDPs and Vax "Mini-computers") "Home computers" was another popular term when Commodore64, Apple II series, Tandy TRS-80 and others were out. "Personal Computer" was a marketing term deliberately introduced by IBM when they introduced their microcomputer. They wanted to differentiate their product as a serious business machine, not just another hobbyist "home computer." So Apple fans and other "workstation" brands got very defensive about how their computer is NOT a "PC". "Personal Computer" was specifically an IBM marketing effort back then. Nowadays it is a generic term like keelnex, and other Genericized trademarks. But certainly the older "workstations" did NOT want their computers called PCs, no matter how well the term fits. Cuvtixo 19:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There is extensive evidence that the term 'personal computer' was in usage in the late 1960's by Hewlett Packard and others 15 years before the introduction of IBM's 5150. Of course the workstation developers don't wish to have their machines called PC's because that's an instant loss of 1000% profits to 'drop' to that classification. The PS3's abilities as a mathematical modeling machine rivals some workstations but is only $300. 'Workstations' is just as much a marketing term as IBM's PC phrasing Alatari 20:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Workstations are simply not PCs. Wikipedia's article on workstations lists some very fundamental differences between the two classes of machines. I think the correct usage for both terms should be promoted, instead of what everybody is familiar with. Rilak 03:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It does not say they are distinct, just that workstations have differences from an average personal computer. These days there is much overlap between the terms, especially since now many workstations are PCs. Mdwh 23:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
There is much overlap between the terms these days, I agree, but we were originally discussing machines from the mid 1990s. The distinction was much clearer back then. As for many 'workstations' these days being PCs, you are right as well, but thats only because some computer shops are selling them as such because they are misusing the word, linking the 'work' in workstation with office usage. You can still find true workstations from companies such as BOXX Tech (3DBOXX, APEXX) or Apple (Mac Pro). Rilak 10:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm in seeing your point of including the evolution of the term in the article. It's not clear to me why there's such a large section on Mainframes and huge lists of individual machines. Mainframes have there own article and a compilation of all personal computers now to present is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. If an external source has such a list we could link it. Instead the top definition can be the best most recent while we expand the article to cover it's meanings since 1960 going decade by decade or at obvious turning points. Some people aren't even buying typical desktop's and are using their cells and PS3/ Wii's for many functions. Can you buy a printer for a PS3? I need to do some reading. Alatari 10:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that covering the evolution of the term and the computer itself is a good idea. It is going to be a major task expanding the article, but one that I'm willing to help out with. Perhaps this should be proposed and a clear concensus regarding how to achieve this be determined. Rilak 13:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Illustration

The "modern personal computer" in the illustration doesn't look very modern. Perhaps a laptop would be more appropriate? How many people use those boxy tower CPUs today? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.251.216 (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Me! Anyway please read WP:RS and then read WP:SOFIXIT. --Kubanczyk 20:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] important health risks?

Hi. Obviously, too much time on the computer can pose health risks. The radiation and strong EMFs can cause things such as cancer, tumours, heart problems, etc. I don't think this needs to be overly sourced, as it is common knowledge. In fact, I get headaches sometimes because of too much Wiki-time. Any kind of screen will do this if there is too much exposure. Just search for health risks associated with computers on a search engine. Please mention some of this in some of these articles. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 18:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not a place for storing data from search engines. Please read WP:RS and then read WP:SOFIXIT. --Kubanczyk 20:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Those health risk concerns would have to be heavily sourced as they are not common knowledge and are actually quite controversial. Alatari 07:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please keep the Lead-in as NPOV as possible

No IBM or Mac only paragraphs. Personal computer is not an archaic term and is in evolution of usage. The history section is getting too long and maybe it needs to be moved to the history of computing articles. There are distinct Convergence movements eliminating the Desktop architecture getting personal computer functionality into the third world in Cell Phone and Laptop form. Alatari (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article organization

The lead in is nice but the article is getting very long. PC as a term could be sprinkled thuout as it is commonly interchangeable. Some of these items could be moved to other articles. A list of important personal computers article or some similar name. The proposed merger with Home Computer and some of the history moved to an article History of computing hardware (1960s-1990s) and History of computing hardware (1990s-2000's). There's a push by industry to eliminate the open source component box approach in favor of smaller PDA, Tablet, Cell and other devices so a discussion on the open component approach versus proprietary might be important soon. Alatari (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that PDAs or tablets are replacing PCs, nor do I think that the industry is doing so. Intel has been making a push to make PC hardware more powerful lately in an effort to promote multimedia and entertainment on the PC platform and so has AMD with its purchase of ATI and the possible fusion of processor and GPU technologies in one product. Many people do things such as image processing and video editing, and these tasks are a common use for PCs, and cannot be replaced by PDAs or tablets. Rilak (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
But the all-in-one box will be more proprietary and not as easily modifiable by the end-user. I don't believe the box will disappear in the near future but the Play Station inroads into the distributed computing model on Boinc projects is an interesting turn of events. The ability to load Linux and a front is it almost possible to call a PlayStation 3 a PC? This convergence of systems is going to make editing this PC page interesting endeavor. Alatari (talk) 05:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
While I do think that the PlayStation 3 and the Cell BE are interesting, I do believe that they are not what many people are saying that they are (supercomputers and PC replacements). Reports on the PS3 and Cell BE such as the Scientific Computing on PlayStation 3 (SCOP3) from the University of Tennessee seems to suggest that the PS3 are still very specialised gaming consoles. For example, the report states that the lack of branch prediction, the lack of IEEE compliant floating point number support, a relatively low performance (to single precision) double precision FLOP/s count, the lack of a faster clustering interconnect and the small size of the main memory. All these are not desirable in a PC or a supercomputer. Perhaps what is desirable is the PS3's low cost and high value. Further more the Linux on PS3 is not what it seems either, for the PS3 restricts the operating system from accessing parts of the console such as the GPU and media subsystem, which a general PC would not do. As for the convergence of systems, I do agree that it will be interesting, for example, AMD's future merge of the CPU and GPU. Rilak (talk) 13:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology section

Common usage of the term PC needs to be discussed in the Etymology section. Alatari (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes perhaps we need a Etimology section in the article, perhaps we also should have seperate articles for "personal computer" and "PC", as a PC is a personal computer, but not all personal computers are PC's. Some people seem to think the two terms are interchangable, but they are not! Personal Computer is a term with a history. I see a small revert war brewing over this issue. (copied from my talk page to here) Mahjongg (talk) 11:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The difference in usage comes especially when the phrase "PC or Mac" is used. I think we can come to some sort of compromise showing that there is a usage difference. I'm no mac fanboy but even I see that the POV in difference in language around PC usage is WP:N Alatari (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merger with Desktop computer

I don't think this merger is advisable, just as it wouldn't be good to merge Laptop into this article. Such articles should exist to describe the characteristics of those particular forms of computer; there is no need to generate a mega-article here. While the current content of those articles may not be best, that can be revised. The existence of articles with those subjects separate from this one should continue, IMO. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I ask you to reconsider. There's virtually nothing in the current desktop computer article that's not already better written in Personal computer. Laptop looks to be a fairly strong article and talks about the peculiar problems of laptops, and I agree that it stands on its own merit. But the desktop computer article is quite redundant with personal computer. Have a look at the desktop computer article again and ask yourself if there could ever *be* anything in it that isn't already covered in personal computer? --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe that some content should be moved here. However, there is some content that should remain in the desktop computer article. For example, this pretty much justifies why there should be a desktop computer article: "There are four types of desktop computers: home computers, or personal computers; workstations, Internet servers, and special communications computers." OK, so it isn't too good at the moment, I might replace 'Internet servers' with a more generic term such as just 'servers', but my point is that if all of the article was merged, then where would this definition be covered? Just to make sure I'm clear, I agree some content should be merged, but not the whole article. The section which deals with hardware looks pretty much like an exact redundant duplication, and it isn't appropriate to discuss hardware in this article as home computers, PCs, workstations and servers are quite different. Rilak (talk) 06:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Four types? Not very accurate, is it? A poor and unreferenced "definition". A data center serving a non-trivial number of clients uses rack-mounted servers or possibly virtual machines running on a mainframe, not desktop boxes. You don' thave *room* for desktops - surely there's an article at blade server and if not, there should be. A tower case is literally not a desktop case. What's a "special communications computer" ? I don't know, and I've been around since the wire-wrap pencil days. If that's the only sentence that anyone can find to justify this article, then I'd feel quite confident that a merge is in order. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I never said it was accurate - I even offered one possible way to make it better. The data center servers you refer to is not what the statement in question discusses. Servers have multiple definitions and one of them is any computer that serves clients. There are many low end desktop servers available for simple office tasks and other miscellaneous purposes. As for a special communications computer, it refers to those that handle non-consumer or 'professional' communications. There are niche computers for those sort of things. But this is not the point of my posting, it has to do with that I think some of the desktop article should be merged, I do not know why this has dragged on for so long, into discussions about what is a server and etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rilak (talk • contribs) 06:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Separating History into another article

We need to move the History section into another article (maybe History of personal computer?). This is not a historical article, rather it should always hold the latest data. The History section is too long for this article and its information has very little value for someone who wants to know what "Personal computer" is today!--Kozuch (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Moved the History section to History of personal computer as I saw a revamp request in to do list. It is needed to write new History section.--Kozuch (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article major overhaul

I gave the article some major overhaul - hopefully, it will be positively viewed. However, there might still be some work left in the "Hardware" and "Software" sections. General little clean-ups might be also needed across whole article.--Kozuch (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review request submitted.--Kozuch (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Turn PC off, or leave on?

I'd really like to see Wikipedia address the issue of whether it is wise to leave computers on, or to periodically turn them off and on. Specifically, what are the energy costs of leaving a computer idling constantly, and, are there any losses to the computer's lifetime incurred by powering on and off? Harkenbane (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Well, I think this would be a good question for the reference desk, and they might give you some gook sources too. However, I myself prefer to turn the computer off as soon as I stop using it. I'd think the computer would be desined to take repeated ons and offs, and maybe leaving it on for too long might cause it to overheat, and over time it also adds up to a big impact on your electricity usage. Besides, leaving it on may allow it to be prone to malware. However, I suggest you get others' opinions too. Hope this helps. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 12:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
It was once good to turn computers off when you were done with them. However, the longer boot times (and indeed, the higher energy requirements when booting) mean that leaving it idle is now preferable except if you are leaving for long periods of time (more than 12 hours between uses at least). An idle computer doesn't draw as much power as one that is processing at capacity. Also, most computers today have "hibernate" and/or "standby" functions which doesn't turn them off, but reduces the power consumption of the computer even further, and allows for a shorter startup Toad of Steel (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)